While we strive for a lively and vigorous debate of the issues, we do not tolerate name calling, foul language or other inappropriate behavior. Please see our discussion guidelines and terms of use for more information.

While we do our best to moderate comments, we do not screen comments before they are posted. If you see a comment that violates our guidelines, please use the "Report Abuse" link to notify us of the issue.

Let them go to Franklin. No way is this worth $48 million to the city of Milwaukee. Come on this is one of the wealthiest companies in the country. Are you trying to tell me they need $48 million in taxpayer dollars for this? This type of corporate welfare must end at all levels...

Not worth $48 million? I disagree. This isn't a "money on the barrelhead" payout request that NML is making to the City of Milwaukee. It's a property tax rebate spread out over 25 years. It appears to be a rather smart investment on behalf of the City: all upfront money from NML, additional jobs in the City proper, use of City residents for construction work, signature building filling out the lakefront skyline, and it insures that a major employer who could easily shift all work to the suburbs remains a major taxpayer in the City limits. I see very little risk to the City and its taxpayers for this deal.

I sympathize with your desire to not give away tax money, but this is *definitely* worth it. $48 Million will come back in a matter of a few years with 2000 employees, not the mention construction workers and so on that will be paid and the likely additional money in associated development, housing, etc... it's a no brainer.

Better.....You should look up "Multiplier Effect" and "Tax Incremental Financing" on the Internet. Once you truly understand these concepts and see the real long-term benefit to the City of Milwaukee.....I am certain that you would retract your statement about corporate welfare. This has nothing to do with your assertion. This deal just makes good sense on all levels.

Rawson...yep and this clearly isn't a case where it even comes close to applying. TIF were meant for blighted areas in need of investment, not a way for multimillion dollar mutuals to shift taxes to other City residents. There is no business case for this in a downtown setting. None..,

TIF has nothing to do with transference of tax base. if NM doesn't build a big building there (due to non-TIF expenditures) then there's $0 increase to the tax base...if NM gets TIF over the next 20 years, then they provide basically the same tax base to milwaukee while providing a continuous stream of additional tax revenue due to expenditures based on the number of employees located in the area. NM is not obligated to build anything on that lot. they could easily just tear down the building, and do nothing with the available space....they already have the ability to relocate all the employees in that building. what's stopping them from just paying simple taxes on a plot of land that is open? nothing. they will have a significant reduction in their tax base simply by doing nothing. or, they can sell the same empty property for large gains (i'm sure you'd be opposed to that as well, since they're an evil corporation) while would then only be taxed federally, and could most-likely be shielded by many corporate tax loopholes.

How shortsited is that, Better Without Bush? If they go to Franklin, then the City of Milwaukee collects 100% of approximately $0 in property taxes...as the lot would be empty. Even with this 70% deal, they are collecting 30% of property taxes on a $200 million lot. The latter is better.

It's not a vacant building. it's still owned by northwestern mutual and will still generate property tax revenue. What NML is getting is $48 million that should be going to schools, police, roads, and fire and instead gives it to the bottom line of NML...

@Better, I don't think you're understanding @morethanjake's point: there will be zero revenue if NM builds in Franklin. So, the $48 million goes to nobody in Milwaukee - zero, nada. You dollars for schools & police & roads does not exist. So, why not take a fraction of the tax revenue for now and all of it later? Also, think of how much additional tax revenue, albeit on an incremental basis, will be generated by an additional 1,700 employees downtown. Your mentality is why Milwaukee continues to struggle. It takes money to make money. City of MKE - finance it! NM - build it. Now. Done.

Yes I do...I helped write some of the frickin legislation. It's nothing but tax payer financed sham. I had no idea what kind of monster we were creating. The fact is NML already has a fully functional building on that site. They want a new one. They need a new one. The simple fact is who is going to pay for it...them or all of us. Simple NML hires workers to make money. If they are hiring more workers its because they need to, not because they want to. The public has been shamed into thinking these really work when only on party benefits...

One of their buildings was built by the same folks who built the O'Donnell parking garage. The one that killed that 15 year old kid. I think they are worried about it falling apart, which I think it is.

When NML says jump, Milwaukee says How High. And rightfully so. If they ever left, this place would become a ghost town in a hurry.

@better ..I've followed your postings over the months. If you've written TIF legislation then I wrote War and Peace and Romeo & Juliet. You don't have the slightest idea how it works based on your comments. By the way, don't even think of taking credit for writing the Bible either.

Tosamark....well the bible was written by powerful men to control the minions, but no can't take any credit for that. And I wish I didn't help with so many TIF districts. They are shams and do nothing but allow developers and select businesses to make a greater profit by simply asking everyone else to pay more...

How is it corporate welfare for the City of Milwaukee to take action to make their location as attractive as a suburb? Economic development helps everyone and it takes a partnership between business and government to make it happen. Good for Mayor Barrett for not letting this opportunity slip away.

I give up. I guess Leona Helmsley was correct in that only little people pay taxes. It's like me saying I'd love to put an addition on my house but don't want you to assess it at fair market because otherwise I'm going 10 miles down the road and building there instead. Again who but NML really wins when we play these games?

@Better, do you employ 3,000 people at your house? And give millions to Milwaukee area charities? And support dozens of events and the Bradley Center/Miller Park/the Arena/The Rep/The MSO, etc with your sponsorship dollars? I didn't think so...

NM is one of the largest property tax payers in town now and will be the largest when this building is completed. So, the citizens of the City of Milwaukee win when this building is completed because NM will be paying much more in property taxes than it is currently. Would you prefer that NM tears down the brown building and turns it into a surface parking lot for the remaining employees downtown? I am sure that was one of the options considered. There is abundant land in Franklin for new NM buildings.

You really think NML is going to tear down a building in downtown and leaving vacant? So what? Even if they did someone would buy it and build on it eventually. The reality is there is land everywhere but NML was going no where and thanks you for reducing their property taxes by 70%.

And Randomwalker....yes but what is your point. It changes nothing at all unless you belong to the mutual.

By the same logic shouldn't all business owners in Milwaukee get reduced property taxes for their buildings because they employ people? Should homeowners only pay taxes?

no, they won't leave it vacant...but they won't expend millions of dollars per year in the first 20 years simply because they can.

yes...in effect every business owner in milwaukee should get reduced property taxes..except that most business owners don't impact thousands of employees and their daily-spent dollars on the immediate economic environment. simply put, do you want NM to stay downtown? if yes, then they want concessions in a form of deferred expenses over the short term. if not, then fine...they'll not build as big of a building (with a lower tax threshold) and will only keep as many employees as is economically feasible in such a physical environment...the remainder will be shipped to the franklin campus which will move the employee-based financial capabilities to that area, outside of milwaukee. the frankling/oak creek tax base now increases significantly due to the influx of spenders into their economic zone (rather than downtown milwaukee) and the entire milwaukee-area tax zone loses out on millions of dollars of revenue, not only in the next 20 years, but beyond that due to the reduced impact of a building investment in prime downtown real estate.

It's worth $49M if some other city will give them $48M instead. If there isn't a net economic benefit, why do cities and states compete so hard for businesses? Either everyone in every government, every economic development board everywhere is stupid, or...

NM's profits are returned to policy owners in the form of dividends. NM is a mutual company, not a stock company, so buy a NM life insurance policy and you too can benefit from being part of a well-run company.

So, imagine you are going to buy a car. Dealer A tells you that the car is going to cost $15,000 and comes in blue. Dealer B tells you that the car is going to cost you $16,000 and they have it in red. You really would prefer the red car but $1,000 is serious money. You tell Dealer B that you are going to have to buy the car from Dealer A because of cost even though you would prefer the red car. Dealer B says no problem, he'll sell you the red car at $10,000. You're happy because you get exactly what you want. Dealer B is smart because he sold a car he otherwise would not have sold.

Do you see something inherently evil about that scenario? Have you acted unethically because you negotiated for the best deal possible? Was Dealer B foolish for competing to sell a car at a price equal to his competitor? If your answers to these questions are no, then I think you need to ask yourself why you would hold the City of Milwaukee and NM to a different standard.